The Dean

For some here, ANY QB is a threat to EJ and they will demand he start with EJ's first incompletion. With that said, not the worst idea.

I don't think Pegula needs to be stunted, or pressured, in this deal. Plus they have another legitimate bidder in Golisano. And, should they go that direction now, wouldn't they make this more of a circus and perhaps invite lawsuits from those who have spent a lot of money on the process to-date? This seems like a circus because it is public. These kind of deals typically aren't public. And, of course, because of the epic public embarrassment of Bon Jovi and the Toronto group.

Agreed. They seemed to forget the play action was in the playbook at critical times.

Hard to believe, I know,

Who did it in the years leading up to '79? If it happens it will be an impressive feat. Not quite as impressive as winning four consecutive Conference Championships--which has happened exactly once.

You keep saying stuff like this. Sorry you are so inconvenienced, but this process will play out. I don't want to sound like a dick, but perhaps you should stop following the sale for a while if it annoys you so much. Come back in a few weeks, for the next phase. Believe it or not, the Bills sale HUGE complicated business transaction and doesn't conform to any particular timeline.

WTF are you talking about? Do you even know?

While I wouldn't totally discount Ozanian's article, it does seem out of step with what others have reported, and behind the times, as he doesn't have Golisano's bid. Mostly it seems like a smear campaign directed at Morgan Stanley. I'm guessing MS and The Trust would like to keep the TO group alive, in order to keep the bids higher. But the TO group has virtually no chance to be awarded the team, so how much can they influence the price?

That is what I understood. Fortunately, The Trust had different marching orders, or at least proceeded to make sure the commitment was long term. Don't be surprised if you don't. Binding bids are expected to close then. There may be more negotiation after than, it seems. Then they have to make their decision. It will be much later until they officially announce it, of course. But we may start hearing rumors (what happened to that non disclosure? ) but don't freak out if the process takes a bit longer to play out.

I suppose that might have been a good response had Hughes been complaining. Apparently he was not.

One report has this quote: “Twenty-one days in pads and counting!” Hughes yelled. “I love it! That’s what happens, baby!” http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/20/marrone-thinks-training-camp-fights-hurt-games-integrity/ Change your mind? Either way frustration about hitting each other is a good sign, IMO.

Exactly. I like the fire from Woods and Hughes. You can't take what these guys at face value right now. They are both sick of hitting, and being hit, by each other. Hopefully by the time the real season starts they will be REALLY frustrated.

Sleeper? He's not sleeping, he's in a coma! Just kidding. I hope the Bills run the kind of offense that keeps the QB fantasy points low.

You may be right. I wasn't suggesting we do anything, I'm really just wondering how this process works--it the Bills did claim him, and won, would they have to put him on the roster? Because if they could stash him on the PS, they could see if he is worth the trouble when he is healthy. MIGHT be a good used of the 10 player PS.

Hey, leave Steely Dan out of this! Actually Steely Dan was a dildo from the book Naked Lunch.

For next year, perhaps? When I saw this yesterday, I tried to post it to the now archived Colt Lyerla thread. Not that I think this guy is worth any big risk, but if you claimed him off waivers, and won, could you put him on the injured list? How about the PS, now that it's been expanded to 10? Again, I'm not suggesting the Bills do this, just wondering what a team's options are with something like this. If he has to count toward the 53, I don't see how having him pass through waivers is too much of a risk, unless he is expected to play at some point this year.

Great Wawrow segment by BuffaloRumblings. I wonder what he was drinking during the interview.

You too.

Again, as a former research professional (and a damn good one, I might add, modestly ) I'd love to see the instrument used, the sample and the data. I can believe many Native Americans don't see this as a huge issue---they have issues much more important to worry about. But I'd love to know how many think the term itself is derogatory and/or offensive. I am fairly sure modern Native Americans don't view the term as particularly positive let alone "an honor".

The intent absolutely matters to me. And I don't think Redskins is intentionally derogatory. But call a woman "fatty" repeatedly, as a joke. You can be kidding, but she still won't like it and eventually will be offended. Why continue to use a known derogatory term? BTW, I think it's easy to understand that something might be offensive, but choose to not be offended by it. But why would an organization choose to use an offensive term---and then defend it by showing many people aren't offended? The point is Ditka blamed liberals for the controversy. He made it a political issue and the poster made it political by saying he spoke "the truth".

The only people who count in the poll are Native Americans. You could have done a poll in the south in the 60's and found that people didn't find the N word derogatory.I'd love to see the methodology and the instrument to see where these findngs come from. I'm 57 years old. In my lifetime I that word has always been a derogatory term. (BTW, the origin of the term is in dispute, but it hasn't' been complementary for years, if it ever was.) I would never even think of calling a Native American a "redskin" to his/her face. I'm not an ignorant fool. Naming a team Redskins is different than a team named The Indians and quite different that a team named The Chiefs. Chiefs is an honorarium. So is Braves. Indians may now be in dispute, but it isn't a derogatory term for Native Americans, just a sloppy one, and maybe should be changed, too. You might name a team The Jews, but would you name them The Kikes? Of course not. The absolute worst argument one can use is that the name has been used since 1932. Since when has historical bigotry been a defense of bigotry? We have evolved. Why must the recognition of the rights, and feelings of those who aren't white, Christian, etc always be fought as if it is a completely new thing? Why must these old ways be defended until the bitter end. Maybe conservatives would have a bigger base if they became proactive on some of these issues. Get in front of a social issue, for once---and not one that drags us back into the 50's. The funny thing is, Snyder could have been a hero in this and made a TON of money. Think of all the money he would have made on new gear? Now it's the inevitable with another old rich white guy backing the wrong side. A shame, really.

Stick a banana up your butt for charity! Pound your thumb with a hammer for charity! Suck a dog's dong for charity! Yes, it's fine if people want to do this for charity. Now it's just a "thing".

There's no room for decency in Ditka's NFL, you pansy!

He's so eloquent and what impeccable logic! Liberals bad! Bigotry good!